Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010
Minutes

The meeting of the Eureka Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman, Mick Simenc.  Present were Hinnen, Knepp, Cuffe and Wertz.  Also present was Tom Hoffman, Tim Sinn, Don Litwiller and Scott and Amy Meyer.

The minutes of March 18, 2010 were considered and moved for approval by Cuffe and second made by Hinnen. All votes yes.

A Public hearing was held to hear the request for a Special Use from the Apostolic Christian Home 602 W. Center.  They are asking to allow the rental of a portion of the property they own at 602 W. Center to a local businessman to display gazebos and storage sheds he which sells. Tim Sinn owns this business and is located in the old Libby Plant. The hearing was closed.

The property in question is west of IGA on the north/east portion of the lot owned by the Apostolic Christian Home. There is an access road already there.  There will be a sign which will give the phone number to call for an appointment.  The items to be displayed will be 9-11 feet tall.  The current access driveway will be used by people to pull in and have access to the brochures, etc.  Mr. Knepp arrived at 7:05 p.m.  The property is currently Zoned R-2 – multi-family residential. Mr. Hoffman the Administrator of the Apostolic Home is requesting a special use for the property to allow the rental to the business. Mr. Hoffman was concerned about requesting a zoning change from R-2 to B-2 General Business District because the home had not determined the use of the property in the future.  He said that Anne said that there would not be a rezoning issue if the Special Use permit was approved.  This is a temporary use of the property.  Mr. Hinnen made a motion to approve the Special Use permit with a two (2) year limit. Wertz seconded.  Hinnen, Wertz, Simenc and Knepp voted yes. Mr. Cuffe voted no. Motion passed. 
The Apostolic Christian Home will need to reapply in two (2) years for an extension of the Special Use permit.

A Public hearing was held to consider the variance request from Scott and Amy Meyer at 204 Shaft to reduce the front yard requirements from twenty (20) feet to seven (7) feet along Shaft Street and to one (1) foot along Bullock Street and to increase the fence height requirement from four (4) feet to six (6) feet to construct a fence. The lot size is 110 feet along Bullock Street and 120 feet on Shaft Street. Scott Meyer said that he talked to the neighbors and the neighbors are fine with it.  The commission wanted to know which neighbors Mr. Meyer spoke to.  A concern was with the water line running up the alley.  Mr. Meyer would need to stay five (5) feet from the water line.  The proposal was to keep the fence five (5) feet off of the alley/ property line to allow for the City access to the waterline.  Mr. Meyer had concerns with the water line placement.  Mr. Meyer also wanted to enjoy the porch and have a gate from the porch to the side fenced in yard.  The fence would be even with house, up to a 45 degree angle.  Mr. Cuffe was also concerned with the type of fence he would be putting in the front yard, ornamental versus privacy fence and the height of the fence.  Mr. Cuff’s biggest fear is setting precedence.

Mr. Cuffe would like Mr. Meyer to re-draw the fence, etc and present exactly what kind of fence he proposed to put up. Mr. Hinnen agreed that this would help in the decision making. Mr. Hinnen said he would have a better understanding of where everything is.  Mr. Cuffe made a motion to table the request until more information can be brought to the committee, second by Knepp.  All votes yes.

The commission considered the request by Mr. Don Litwiller to consider designating sixteen (16) lots in the College Park Subdivision, Zero Lot Line Development.  An explanation of the single lot with a duplex built on it and Zero Lot Line Development was provided Mrs. Wertz per her request.  There are four (4) lots that meet the frontage requirements for Zero Lot Line Development.   The Commission felt that they could consider approving four (4) at this time.  This would include lots 26, 34, 32 and 9 for Zero Lot Line Development.  Mr. Hinnen thinks that Mr. Litwiller should start with just these four (4), and market them, see how they go, and then we can reconsider and adjust.  Mr. Litwiller also asked for lots 5 and 8. Mr. Cuffe made a motion to allow zero lot lines on lots 26, 32, 34 and 9 and also ONLY on lot 8 with the provision that just because lot 8 sells, it does not automatically revert the other lots in the subdivision open to Zero Lot Line Development.  Any other lots in the subdivision would have to be considered and approved by the Planning Commission and existing duplexes in the subdivision will not automatically be allowed to be grandfathered in as zero lot lines.  Second by Mr. Hinnen.  All voted yes.

Meeting was moved for adjournment. 

Respectfully Submitted

Barb Wertz